Elizabeth Hurley Tells Court of Privacy Ordeal

Actor Elizabeth Hurley told the High Court in London that she endured what she described as a brutal invasion of privacy after her home and landline phones were allegedly targeted to gather information for newspaper stories. Giving evidence in an ongoing privacy case, the 60 year old said she believed her conversations had been secretly monitored, leaving her deeply distressed when she later learned the scale of the intrusion. Hurley became emotional at points during her testimony, telling the court that personal moments, including medical details relating to her pregnancy and family disputes, were published without her consent. She said discovering the alleged actions years later had been devastating and left her feeling crushed. The case is one of the most high profile media privacy battles heard in London in recent years, drawing widespread public interest because of the prominent figures involved and the serious nature of the claims.

Hurley is one of seven claimants bringing legal action against the publisher of the Daily Mail, alongside other well known public figures. She told the court that some of the articles she is suing over could only have been written using unlawfully obtained information, rejecting suggestions that friends or acquaintances had passed details to journalists. During questioning, she described how microphones were allegedly placed near her home, allowing private conversations to be overheard. She said the impact went beyond professional embarrassment, causing lasting emotional harm. The court also heard how Hurley had previously been unaware that she might have grounds to pursue legal action, only learning more about phone hacking years later through conversations with people close to her. The publisher has strongly denied all allegations, describing the claims as unfounded and insisting the reporting was lawful.

The proceedings are also examining whether the claims were brought within a reasonable time frame, with lawyers for the publisher arguing that the case should not proceed because of delays. Hurley told the court that while she had some awareness of phone hacking scandals in the media, she did not initially understand that she herself might have been affected. She said she later pursued action against another newspaper group and donated damages she received to a campaign group advocating for press reform. The hearing continues to attract attention because of its potential implications for historic media practices and accountability. As evidence unfolds, the case is expected to play a significant role in shaping the ongoing debate around privacy, press freedom, and the treatment of public figures by sections of the media in the United Kingdom.